Zeitgeist, Occupations, Tools, Suits, and Elemental Associations

And so, my tarot learning continues.

I am going to go straight to it.

Our current convention for tarot dictate that there are four suits in the deck of 78, each of which are associated with the four elements: fire, water, earth, air.

Like most, I started off with the Raider Waite Smith system, and like most, I learned to associate air with the suit of swords, water with cups / chalices, fire with staves / baton, and earth with coins.

But then, the wonder of the world of independently produced decks becons. In this world, creativity abounds. Oh so wonderful. Souls and spirits connect and sing. We celebrate our uniqueness in our experiences of ourselves and of the world and we share them with others.

Part of this wonder if the elemental switching that happens occassionally, throwing some of us off. Understandably.

On first impression this can come across very confusing indeed. A bit random at times. Although quite often, more extensive explanations by each author in their respective guide books (or booklets) assist us greatly in understanding the world and therefore the the internal logic of a particular deck. Elemental switching grounded on explained internal rational is easier to deal with. But quite often explanations are quite sparce. They do not go beyond stating that such and such suit, because of their depiction of such and such object, is more associated with this and that element in the author’s mind. No further explanation is offered and we are expected to accept the author’s world view as is, at face value. Without understanding the internal reality of a deck, and without an explanation of the world view of the author, having to read with elemental switching can be very hard work. Consequently, for a lot of readers, elemental switching become a deal breaker come to choosing a deck.

But before we turn ourselves away from decks that contain elemental switching, I believe there are a few things that we can consider before we can decide whether such a deck is indeed not for us.

I would like to take as an example two decks: Silicon Dawn and The Celtic Dragon Tarot

Tarot of Silicone Dawn

Silicon Dawn switches the elemental associations between coins and staves.

In this deck, coins are associated with fire, and staves with earth. Interestingly, the 10 of fire, which has been named “Opperession” by Crowley in his Thoth deck is still 10 of fire and oppression in the Silicone Dawn, but it takes the form of the 10 of pentacles. Interesting? Indeed.

Who among us who cannot relate to coins being opperessive? Finances, money, bills, earthly needs. While in this particular world, in this particular zeitgeist, the wands are of the earth. There is a sense of nature oriented pursuits here. The characterisations of the suit remains, but each come to be symbolized by different items, in this particular world view of this particular deck. But we could imagine that this attribution rang true to our world outside of the deck.

Ten of pentacles as “oppression”, as 10 of fire make total sense in our modern world does it not?

While 10 of wands is 10 of earth. Wands, or staves, no longer representations for the upwardly mobile working class. Coins are. Aren’t this true in our modern world? Who do you often see having staves or wands around these days? Those who commune with nature, and everything else that might be associated with it, is it not?

The fire is still a state of passion driven centredness, and too much of this can be oppresive indeed. But the wand is no longer representing this state. In this world, the coins are.

The Celtic Dragon Tarot

(I do not own this deck)

In The Celtic Dragon Tarot, the “wands” (batons / staves) are attributed to air.  And swords is attributed to fire.

The deck’s world view if of mythology, folklores, and legends.

The mind is still air. It’s just that the mind in the world of the Celtic Dragon, the mind is represented by the wands. Naturally. In the world of the Celtic Dragon, the wand symbolizes the magician, and in this world, the magician, the wizard, is king. The sword on the other hand, has been relegated to that  firey force. Virtuos, but less considerate somewhat.

The mind is still air, and the air is still the mind. But the mind is no longer swords, they are now wands.

Elements, tools, occupations, and zeitgeist

So.

This is how I see it:

1. ELEMENTS: There are the elements (attributed to the suits): fire, earth, water, air.

2. TOOLS: There are the suits, or in the case of tarot, tools (attributed to both the elements and the occupations): wands/staves, coins, chalices/cups, swords.

3. ATTRIBUTES: There are the attributions assigned to the elements: passion/drive/desire, worldly resources/finances, emotions, mind (spirituality can fall between emotions or mind depending on where you stand on things)

4. OCCUPATION: There are the “occupations” (depending on the world of the deck), this can be kings, wizzards, soldiers, musicians, artists, corporate people, journalists, lawyers, artists, etc.

5. ZEITGEIST: There are the zeitgeist, or the world view, of the deck.

Depending on (5), associations between (4) and (3) will vary accordingly, while (4) will be closely tied to (2), therefore (3) will be associated with (2) in accordance to how the zeitgeist of the deck would associate (4) and (3).

Confusing?

Yeah. This would have been clearer in a diagram. But until I know how to post a diagram here, I will try to go back to the two decks which I have decided to use as examples above.

In the world of the Celtic Dragon (5), the wand (2) is attributed to air (1), because those who utilize wands (4) are considered rulers of that world. The sword (2) has been “relegated” to the position of fire (1).

I say “relegated” here as if the qualities represented by air is somehow of a “higher order” than those of fire.

This would be correct.

So what paradigm is this? I don’t know. I can only say that my current thoughts stems from this position. So that when you read this, you can say that this may be true from this position, but if another position were to be taken, the whole model will shift entirely. Which would be true as well.

So, since all we can do is talk about various things from our current position, what I can do for now is to say why I have taken this position for now:

(1)   in my own world, the qualities represented by air, the mind, is always going to be those considered to be more advanced in their development along the human evolutionary chain. I am not saying that one can do without the other to form a complete and whole human person.

(2)   This is generally true in the current world out there, the world that we are living in right now.

(3)   The zeitgeist of the “original” playing cards [and by “original” I mean the root of the tarot system as we know it today, and as I believe it to be, that is the Italian and French playing cards from the 1600s and 1700s (because there are evidence of older forms of playing cards from the “East”: from the Middle East and Asia)] divided society into several large categorization: The Clergies (Chalices) or the Earthly authority of the Spiritual Realm, The Rulers of Earthly Realm (Swords), Merchants (Coins), and Labourer (Staves/Clubs). In this zeitgeist, the Sword always feel as if they always rule over the Clubs.

Going back to the example decks I mentioned above. Let’s now take the Silicon Dawn. In this deck, the element of fire has been attributed to the suit of coins. While the wands / clubs / staves have been assigned the element of earth.

In the zeitgeist of Silicon Dawn, the world is modern, in fact, almost futuristic, or even perhaps, ultra-modern. In this particular world, the things that is associated with fire (1) is not the staves (2). The fire (1) which can both heal and destroy, the element that is vital to movement and when out of balance completely burn things out of existence, is now associated with coins. Money (2), worldly possessions, worldly resources and desire. It sounds appropriate, as this does not sound very far from the world that we are living in today. The staves, the wands (2), the tool of nature, of communing with nature, is now associated with the element of earth (1). 

Within the world of the Silicon Dawn, this would be fitting indeed. The coins in today’s world is often associated with burden, and with the same balancing act that is required of the element of fire in any tarot deck. The people of coins in today’s world are not the same as the people of coins in 1700s Western Europe. Coins do not have the same relationship with society as they did then, because our world economy is not the same as they were then. They don’t represent the same things now as they did then, as societies moved away from old world, land based feudalism into the beginning of the macro economy that we see today.

The point of this ramble

So in conclusion, I suppose the point that I hope to make here is that, when we see any elemental swappings, perhaps it pays to first of all see whether these swaps make sense, in that it is aligned with the zeitgeist of the deck.

I know that for some, swapping of elements in a deck is a deal breaker.

Personally, for me, a deal breaker would be if the swapping was done for novelty sake. This, to me, does not add to anything, but complicate things instead.

But. If the swapping is done to convey a deeper message. If the swapping is done through the formation of a solid world within the deck, a world so vivid that we can take inspiration from it, a world so consistent in its internal logic that we are allowed to peer into different worlds of widsom which each deck, then, I feel that dismising elemental swapping out right would be a missed opportunity for deeper learning that often can only be achieved through trying to understand worlds that is other than our own.

Spiritual Labels: Descriptions, Definitions, and Identity

Human languages have always had their limitations. Like any other systems of symbols, it is not always all encompassing. Life is vast, and it is often difficult to capture such vastness within the confine of human made constructs, which by its very definition serves more the comfort of our human understanding, which is not limitless, rather than the very thing they seek to understand.

In order to communicate, we need a common language. This much is obvious. 

We need labels and terminologies, and not only that, we need to have the same understanding of these labels and terminologies, before we can use them as a common ground to discuss various matters from. 

The sad reality of our human condition is that with labels come categorization. With categorization comes inclusions and exclusions.

When we categorize, say, avocados, all is well. Let's say that I maintain that avocado is a type of fruit, and you say nope it is a kind of vegetable. Then I say but I mix it with coffee and sweet milk in a blender so it is surely a kind of fruit. And you say but I have them in my sandwiches and salads, so it is a vegetable for sure. And then I say but you can have fruit in your salad and sandwiches too. And then you say hmm I don’t know about that.

You get the picture.

When we categorize people however, we come across this thing which we do not with avocados.

Identity.

This is when things can get hairy.

Identity touches the core of who we believe we are. We have painstakingly scoped for ourselves this little area within reality that we can call our own. A fragment of space which we can have all to ourselves. A place where we can externalize ourselves, from which we can then say, this is who I am. 

A self definition we feel we must have of ourselves, outside ourselves, in order to know ourselves.

When someone comes into your world and say, well, I am like you, I am a bit of whatever you define yourself to be. But. I am also a bit of what others who are unlike you have defined themselves to be, it is understandable that this kind of thing might feel as if it takes away from the solidity that we have created for ourselves. 

The things that we have imbued ourselves into. We project ourselves onto. So much so that we almost always expect to see an ever clearer image of ourselves, as we are, or as we want ourselves to be, looking back at us. 

Our own reflections interrupted by the reality of having to constantly avail this space to others who are passing through.

Identity.

The labels we spoke of earlier are descriptive. They are not prescriptive. At least they should not have been.

Hardly anything in this life is “pure”. Something always comes from something (else), as Maria von Trapp sang to her beloved in a particularly romantic moment in “The Sound of Music”. Things evolve all the time. Life is never tidy. And it always changes. Always.

Things may appear somewhat permanent in our human moments. In our limited capacity to see the whole of reality, we may be forgiven for thinking that everything stand still.

Like looking at piece of lemon, trapped in an ice cube. As some point, it was a piece of lemon floating on water. And maybe, perhaps in a particularly hot day, it would just be a piece of lemon. But for a single slice of time, we can describe it as “lemon in an ice cube”. Because that is the best way to describe a slice of lemon trapped in an ice cube. Next time, it may be “a slice of lemon in water”. That, too, would be correct, as least for that particular segment of time. If a piece of lemon in water, or in an ice cube, ever found itself in a transition phase, say, between being inside an ice cube and being among dribbles of water, then we can say, there is a piece of lemon in both an ice cube and some water. Or, there is a piece of lemon in half an ice cube. Or, there is a piece of lemon in half of a dribble of water. Or, whatever.

You can see that this can get very tedious very fast. 

Understandably. 

So then, smart creatures that we are, we concoct terminologies, as we do. A shorthand for those who are interested in discussing the topic. Of course, it goes without saying, that it might help if everyone involved in the conversation agrees on what each terminology represents.

Once, I asked for “plunger coffee” in the US. Blank stares. And then laughs. In New Zealand, this is the term that we use for “French press”. Not in the US! There, a plunger is something you use to deal with some unmentionable unpleasantness related to household plumbings!

Could I have just asked for “coffee” to keep things simple? Sure. But this would involve describing my coffee brewing method of choice in all of its painful details. No so simple after all.

Labeling is a form of shorthand. We all get that.

Labels are not definitions.

Defining often entails the act of describing. But in describing, we do not have to define them.

Why should we?

Our labels do not have to be our identity.

Why should it?

We are who we are. This is the only way to define ourselves.

A label is a beautiful thing, when we use labels to assist the flow of communication with others, to increase dialogues, exchanges of ideas, self explorations, fellowships, better understanding of everything, and contributing to an over expanding view of the universe.

But when we start confusing the mean with the end, the tool with what the tool is suppose to accomplish, trying to squeeze people and the vastness of reality into tidy little boxes, treating the tool for clarity as clarity itself, we would not only deny ourselves the ever expanding potential of our mind, but we would also be denying the universe, and by extension, ourselves, its (our) true becoming. Its (our) true vastness made absent, its (our) glory denied.

We are who we are. Describe it. Own it. 

Always remind ourselves that things are forever changing, flowing, evolving. 

Remember that we gave birth to labels. 

The label does not become us. It is the other way around.

More important than the connection between a particular label and the truth as we see it, is the consistency of, and an agreement on, what each label represents, in a particular given conversation.

But there it is again.

Identity.

It is always EASIER, to identify with something that is NOT so forever flowing, and changing, and morphing. So vague. So abstract.

Sure.

Once again, in moments like this, I usually ask myself the same question: Why I am on my current path?

What am I here for?

If I need an external source of identity, I’ll get a new hat.

Our spiritual path is a part of who we are. In some cases, IT IS who we are.

But the shorthand, is NOT.